Do they replace Tweedle-Dee with Tweedle-Dum; or does Tweedle-Dee get one more chance? This is the eternal question which confronts the binary minds of American voters every election, in their two-party political system which masquerades as a “democracy”.

While we can quibble over semantics, most people would agree that a democracy must demonstrate two qualities in order to be worthy of that term:

a) A government chosen by the people;

b) Whose actions reflect the will of the people.

It is abundantly clear that the United States political system fails both of those tests. Undoubtedly, most readers will reject this assertion. They will point to the voting process, and simplistically suggest that the mere act of voting means that whatever government emerges from the process was “their choice.” I disagree.

The 2012 U.S. election provides us the perfect opportunity to analyze the flaws of the U.S. political system because the two candidates are virtual clones of each other (skin colour notwithstanding). In Mitt Romney and Barack Obama; Americans have been given the “choice” between two of the most shameless flip-floppers to ever contaminate the political process.

The sci-fi cartoon comedy “Futurama” took this argument to its literal extreme: an episode featuring an election (in the future) between two actual clones – in a two-party system. The very pertinent point it made was this: if voters’ only choice is between two exact duplicates, in practical terms this clearly represents no “choice” at all.

However, even if this U.S. election was not a contest between two candidates who behaved as virtual replicas of each other, there is another extremely strong argument that the U.S. political system denies the U.S. voter any true “choice”: money.

One of the many unique “qualities”(?) of the U.S. political system is that during (and prior to) election campaigns, the U.S. media spends just as much time covering the race to raise money by the two parties as it does covering poll results. And it spends more time covering both those topics than it does in covering the actual campaign issues.

This in itself is highly revealing. What election “coverage” in the U.S. is now really all about is showing those who are stuffing money into campaign coffers whether they are getting their money’s worth – as evidenced by the poll results. This begs the question: who is stuffing these $billions into the bribe-receptacles of the two political parties? Simply put: the billionaires.

This is the other (disturbing) reason why the media provides as much coverage to the funding-derby as it does to the actual political campaign itself: in the U.S.; the candidate with the most money wins the vast majority of the time. And with the U.S. having the most lax rules for campaign contributions in the Western world; the ultra-wealthy can funnel as much money as they want to the candidate of their choice.

The reality that U.S. elections are now nothing but money-competitions between billionaires is now out in the open. When the shadowy Financial Oligarchs (with Wall Street as their front) were stuffing their money into Barack Obama’s war-chest, and were well on their way to (literally) buying his re-election; the “Billionaires For Romney” emerged.

As their Big Money rose to the same level as the Obama Big Money, suddenly an election which at first seemed like nothing more than a coronation turned into a horse-race. And this is a “democracy”?

Even more disgraceful is what these political shills (for both parties) do once they are elected. George Bush Jr. promised to bring “conservative values” back to America. He more than doubled the U.S. national debt in eight years, and ended his term in office with the largest single orgy of Corporate Welfare in history: the Wall Street bail-out/hand-outs.

Barack Obama promised ordinary Americans “change”. The only “change” he produced was what he stole out of their pockets. Not only did Obama continue Bush’s hands-off policies toward Wall Street, not only did he continue the Bush tax-cuts (the largest tax-windfall for the Rich in history), but the gap between rich-and-poor has rapidly accelerated during the Obama betrayal.

In short, the U.S. election process is now a competition between two Oligarch-funded political institutions who represent nothing more than slightly different ways of serving those Oligarchs. It is both eerie and ironic how much the current U.S. political system resembles the political system of the (old) Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union had “elections” too. Their people were also given the “choice” of two candidates. The only difference between the two systems is a cosmetic one. In the U.S., the two Oligarch-serving institutions are given two, different “party” names, to create the illusion of real choice. In the Soviet Union, the lack of choice was explicit: both candidates were representatives of the Communist Party – “competing” to see who would get to serve the ‘Communist’ Oligarchs.

This political tunnel-vision in the U.S. is nothing less than binary insanity: the delusion that replacing Tweedle-Dee with Tweedle-Dum can/will solve all their problems; despite election after election where this political game of “musical chairs” never changes anything. I label this a form of “insanity” because the voters themselves know that their compulsion to alternate between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum is futile – as reflected by the consistently low approval ratings they give their representatives (of both parties). And it is obviously a “binary” form of insanity.

This can be demonstrated by asking the disgruntled American voter a rhetorical question: if you hate both parties, then why not vote for a Third Party? Here the Binary Insanity of Americans has been relentlessly reinforced by the Corporate Media, itself owned by a handful of Oligarchs.

These other shills-for-the-Rich have drummed their Big Lie into the minds of Americans through endless repetition: “a vote for a Third Party is a wasted vote.” The pseudo-logic which the propaganda machine uses to justify the Lie is a classic example of circular reasoning.

Voting for a Third Party is a “waste of a vote” they say, because no Third Party candidate “would ever have a chance of being elected.” However, that assertion is only true as long as Americans believe it to be true. The moment that Americans stopped believing this Big Lie then Third Party candidates would instantly become viable alternatives.

We know this is true because of more than a century of empirical evidence from other “multi-party democracies” (i.e. real democracies). Even in multi-party systems; the vast majority of elections are between two dominant parties. While a few of these systems have splintered into permanent, multi-party coalitions; the vast majority have two, major parties. The point, however, is that these two dominant parties change.

In political systems which truly represent multi-party democracies, senior Establishment parties rise and fall. This is an inevitable process because of the political reality known as Corruption. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Inevitably, major parties become terminally afflicted with Corruption, to the point where their candidates are shunned by the Voters – and a new party emerges to take its place.